Talk:Reginald Barclay
Reginald Barclay Peer Review Due to the comments made in the recent FA nomination, I feel it is necessary to open up a peer review for this article. I have personally worked on a lot of this article and aim to re-nominate it once the two week time period is up, however to avoid a repeat performance, I would like to ask everyone to comment on it here and suggest (and preferably make) any relevant changes needed to ensure FA status. Thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 04:45, February 25, 2011 (UTC) :I've put some work into such things as correcting spelling errors, cutting down on the amount of repeated info and removal of info from inappropriate sections, etc. But I still definitely feel the article needs more work on the latter of these two aspects. There's just too many repeated points, as far as I can see! Having said that, the "Starfleet career" section is now generally looking quite good and to-the-point, though I wasn't sure where the note about Barclay's assistance with Alexander's holoprogram should go and some of the info from VOY is not as to-the-point as it could be. I'm sure someone with a better grasp of those Voyager episodes could do a better job on that bit than me! --Defiant 18:27, February 25, 2011 (UTC) No, you did a great job. It looks a lot more streamlined. It's good that you've worked on it. I'll try and do some more work on the Voyager sections so they flow better with yours. Plus, I've added the episode reference talking about Spot, it's . --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:37, February 25, 2011 (UTC) Does anyone have any comments on how it looks now? --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. As I've said, the article has too many repeated points. Another issue I've raised above but hasn't been suitably addressed yet is the irrelevance of some of the Voyager info. --Defiant 20:01, March 8, 2011 (UTC) I know, I'm just trying to encourage more input from others into the whole process. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:49, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :Then maybe it would have been more appropriate if you had put "Does anyone else...", as "anyone" includes me; I'm not no-one! --Defiant 23:39, March 8, 2011 (UTC) OK... --| TrekFan Open a channel 09:29, March 9, 2011 (UTC) :Are there any more comments to be had for this article? I don't think the article repeats to much now. It reads fine in my opinion. Are there specific instances that you believe are repetitive? --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:27, March 9, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. I've cited some examples of the problems I have in the "Pathfinder Project" subsection. I also have some qualms about some of the info in the "Holo-addiction" subsection; I'll watch the episode and try & do some more work on it. --Defiant 15:10, March 9, 2011 (UTC) I have reworded the Pathfinder section. What do you think of it now? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:21, March 12, 2011 (UTC) :I personally think it's a lot better now. Having said that, though, I removed the following statement, as I didn't see its relevance to the section about Barclay's career and thought it more suitable for the section on Holo-addiction, if anywhere at all: "Harkins feared that Barclay had suffered a relapse of his holo-addiction." This is already stated in the holo-addiction subsection (as far as I can tell), so there's no need to repeat it. The "Pathfinder Project" subsection still needs some more work, though, as (the only qualm I didn't note in the article itself) the paragraphs containing info from and need to be made more relevant to Barclay himself. --Defiant 22:24, March 14, 2011 (UTC) OK, give me a minute and I'll have a look at it and see what I can do. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC) I've edited the "Life Line" section slightly to be more Barclay-centric. I don't know how to change the "Inside Man" section though. It currently describes the Ferengi plan and that Barclay fooled them. I don't know what else to say about that. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:35, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :I've made that "Life Line" paragraph even more Barclay-centric, though I can't really help with the "Inside Man" info (at least, not yet), as I'm slowly working my way through the series run of Star Trek: Voyager and I'm only up to Season 4, so I wish to avoid "spoilers" as much as possible! --Defiant 23:05, March 14, 2011 (UTC) Oh right OK! Call yourself a Trekkie, man! haha :P I'll have a think about how to word it and see if I can improve it. Is that the only thing you think needs sorting or is there anything else you have noticed? --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:08, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, there's lots more ways the article could be improved. After re-watching and a few days ago, I discovered that loads of info could be added to the article. The problem of duplicated info already in the article still remains, and hasn't been dealt with in any kind of satisfactory way. Also, the info about the non-holographic crew members in the "holo-addiction" section (or, at least, most of that info) should, I feel, be instead separated into the "career" and "relationships" sections (but obviously as appropriate!). --Defiant 00:50, March 15, 2011 (UTC) I've moved some of the holo-addiction info to the relationships section. To be honest, I think the article is fine now. There's bound to be some overlaps in the descriptions but I don't think it uselessly repeats information. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:35, March 15, 2011 (UTC) Participation Hi TrekFan invited me to participate, and I'd like to, for the article contains many "little" things – grammar, links, inconsistencies (e.g., "LaForge" and "La Forge"), MoS stuff, etc. I don't know if I'm supposed to "jump in" and fix those or discuss them here. (I've never done a PR before.) There are a few structural issues that'd I'd leave up to you guys, though I'd weigh-in. Please advise: I don't want to ruin this, especially if the goal is getting it to FA status! (I know one criterion is stability, so I hesitate to make a bunch of prose fixes/edits.) And by the way: the article otherwise looks pretty good, IMO. Kudos to whoever put together the detail, etc. 16:26, March 16, 2011 (UTC) :Are you sure you're looking at the current version of the page, Cepstrum? I can't find any examples of the erroneous "LaForge" in the article! The page is far from complete, IMO, so feel free to edit it to your heart's content, basically. --Defiant 16:32, March 16, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, ditto on what Defiant said. In addition, feel free to jump in and edit any aspects of the article you see fit. Just put a note here once you have so we can keep track of it and discuss any additions we need to. This is the editing stage so anything goes, really (within reason, of course!). Hopefully, we can build this up to FA status! --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:50, March 16, 2011 (UTC) Sure, ok. (Re "La Forge": it was there at around the time I posted the above...). It's always easier to copy-edit someone else's work, as I've experienced in co-authoring journal articles! (I still can't believe each time I let a few errors get published after my co-authors looked at it again, as well as the second or third round of peer review! I always find plenty of errors in my colleagues' work, and vice-versa. :-/ Glad to help in any way possible. 13:23, March 18, 2011 (UTC) :::After seeing Cepstrum's original comments about "LaForge" v "La Forge", I did a general cleanup sitewide of those. Again. -- sulfur 13:36, March 18, 2011 (UTC) ::RE, Cepstrum: Well, any help you can provide would be great. That's what peer review is about, after all! Just keep in mind to post any changes you make here so we can keep a record of who has done what. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:50, March 18, 2011 (UTC) I did a little copy-editing, linking, grammar, linking, MoS, etc., up until before the Pathfinder Project. Change anything you don't like. (My style of writing is a little more formal.) Don't know when I'll be able to do more (but I hope to). Good luck! :) 15:28, March 18, 2011 (UTC) Note: I'd like to go through the whole article and adjust/"tweak" the prose while you guys are focusing on structure, etc. And, of course, change anything of mine you don't like or isn't proper. The only thing is, I'd have to do it in stages over a few days (as I did with the stuff up to up to Pathfinder today). I think I'll wait to see if you receive my "tweaks" well or dislike them before continuing. If it's the latter case, then I could just add my thoughts/comments here – I know not everyone likes my writing style, and I'm bound to make errors (as I've found myself doing even today!). 19:05, March 18, 2011 (UTC) ::Not at all. For this particular article, I think a formal writing style is required. I believe it's episode articles, for example, that require more of an entertaining approach, since the summary should be entertaining to the reader. Unless Defiant has any objections, then by all means continue to edit away! We can always change or discuss anything that's been added so it's the end of the world. It's nice to see another user taking an active role in a peer review. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:11, March 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::I tightened up the overall wording, as it tended to had tense problems, use a lot of unnecessary words, and rambled off topic a bit. It's by no means perfect, and there's still some bloat with unnecessary friendship sections, but this is much better than the article that was up for FA a bit prematurely. - 22:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC) "New" look Thanks, Archduk3 (et. al), for fixing many issues; I think the structure is far better. I would not yet support it, however, for several prose problems exist (grammar bugs, repetitious diction/filler "buzzwords", case/voice/tense switches, a couple typos, and worst, some missing introductory links and inconsistent naming, as per the MoS). Otherwise, the wording, structure, format, etc., look (IMO) pretty good. (I didn't mean to come across as an overly harsh critic; it does in fact look a good deal better.) Also: it's much easier for me to comment here than to make edits via an iPod! :-/ Perhaps a couple more rounds of a few of us copy-editing each other's work would suffice – actually, I'm sure of it. (I touched-up only the very beginning before.) There isn't that much to "correct", despite my foregoing list of misgivings. I don't know when I'' could get to this, but it ''probably wouldn't happen before early next week. And the more I consider it, I probably would support this, once someone corrects the typos and linking/naming issues. Just my thoughts! 16:28, March 19, 2011 (UTC) :I've had to make quite a lot of tweaks to the article; its uses of grammar and punctuation were appallingly abysmal! --Defiant 04:08, March 20, 2011 (UTC) Big search engine problem? I typed "Barclay" into MA's search engine and found myself on [[User:Barclay|'this page']] (interesting coincidence that the user's a biomedical engineer...but I digress). I don't know whether it's a bug in MediaWiki, a Wikia problem, or an intentional redirect. Regardless, I think a user should be able to type "Barclay" and get to the character, not the user – or at least a "search results" page. Does anyone else have this problem, or is it just on my end? 15:31, March 19, 2011 (UTC) :Wikia has been buggy forever, but I have occasionally ended up on some random page that was not at all what I entered into the search box, but I've never been able to reproduce the problem. - 16:41, March 19, 2011 (UTC) ::That's an issue with the search engine default settings. It should only search in the MA namespace and the main namespace (not in that order). It's also been finding stuff on talk pages of late too. I'll report it. -- sulfur 16:54, March 19, 2011 (UTC)